Support NeoGAF

[Vaelka]

They're the exception, not the rule. But Nice try.

Why should they be the rule tho?
'' Beauty standards bad '' and all that, but in the end of the day being muscular and gruff is the beauty standard of men.
I know that there are people who will say that what women like is '' pretty boys '' but I don't think that's actually true at large. I mean there's obviously the extreme like in Gears of War or something but in general the typical AAA male protagonist is very attractive and perfect in the masculine sense.
The typical AAA male protagonist looks like the cast in Magic Mike, they have the facial structure, build and are well-groomed like actual male strippers and porn stars.
Even in TLOU2 the male love interest of Abby looks like a model ( he even has styled hair where did he get that hair gel from? ).
Most men don't look like him or Joel.

I also think that this is mostly an issue in the West, in Japan muscular women are and have been more acceptable in games etc because they acknowledge more sexual preferences.
As much as people want to bash on the Japanese for '' anime tiddies '' they actually do portray a lot more diverse women than we do in the West.
People might get mad about that because it's '' sexualizing '' but in the end of the day it makes it easier to accept something for people if it's acknowledged as such.
I mean look at the female characters in Street Fighter and compare them to MK11.
The women in MK11 still look like skinny swimsuit models while the female characters in Street Fighter look super ripped all the way up to bodybuilders. But MK11 is treated as '' progressive '' because Ed Boon made comments about how they covered the female characters up more in interviews and Street Fighter doesn't get any praise at all for actually making the female characters look buff.
Even Karin who's not really super ripped is still very muscular just has a bit more fat on her and isn't as ripped as someone like Cammy for example.
But she's not skinny.

I mean yeah muscular women are going to be the exception, because it's not typically seen as desirable in women while with men it is and it is a beauty standard for men. And even tho people can pretend otherwise today characters in games are still designed based on conventional beauty standards.
Muscular women being the rule would be like effeminate men being the rule.

You mean they are the exception just like how muscle women are the exception amongst the women population?

In fairness so are men.
But like I mentioned above characters in media whether it be games or movies are unconventional.
They usually represent a perceived ideal, men in games and movies look like models we just don't acknowledge it as much as we do with women because beauty and physical appearance is generally more obsessed about with women.
But the overwhelming majority of male characters look like they could easily star in a Magic Mike sequel.

Women are skinny because that's the perceived ideal amongst women.
For all of the complaining about sexualization in media the easiest way to get more muscular women would actually be to expand the depiction of sexualized content. Same with more depictions of men. Because human sexuality is quite diverse and it's easier for people to accept.

 

[Closer]

Why should they be the rule tho?

I'm not asking to be the rule, I'm asking for space. We got lots of games with muscle men, where are the muscle women? Just want more.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

OOF, wrong thread, sorry!

 

[ThePhantomKnight]

This forum spends literally hundreds of pages complaining about politics in games and almost as many complaining how kotaku shouldnt be allowed to write about politics in games.

Yes because it legit agitprop or deluded individuals making their opinion known to the public. If a forum were to discuss Articles From gaming website that employs storm fornt posters would that be all that surprising? Giving the radical and nonsensical nature of their views.?

 

[PleaseWaitStation4]

Create the problem, then sell the solution. Right, Anita?

 

[Shmunter]

Help, the mainstream is lifting our veil! Except they don’t even know they’re wearing it.

Too bad the self admitted Marxists have shown what they’re capable off. Now the great unwashed will scrutinise what’s being whispered in their ear with more awareness. Democrats aligning themselves and filling their ranks with such extremism means its over for them.

It’s sad for a liberal like myself needing to look to the right for sensibility, even if I don’t agree with all policies.

 

[Damigos]

I won’t press it. I don’t wanna give these morons a click

 

[TheNameisSilent]

what even is considered alt-right?

 

[IDappa]

Literally merely having a gay character in a game is labeled as "having a political agenda" widely on this forum.. but "it's just Call of Duty" if they include a bunch of right-wing politics?

I don't have any issue with COD BTW.. they can put whatever they want in their game.

I'm laughing at the fact nobody who thinks "gay people in a game is a political agenda" will do anything but strongly support this stuff showing up in COD on this forum.. you can pretty much guarantee that.

It's literally using a historical figure from the era they are trying to replicate. People don't have problems with historically accurate depictions of media. It's not like they're throwing woman on the frontlines in firefights from WW2 and saying this is the right side of history.... oh wait

 

[Redlancet]

This guy also writes for the guardian, with that looks what do you expect?

 

[anothertech]

Lololol

Bwahahahwhaa

 

[Lort]

So now we can see just how many of the regular posters have a political agenda.

Thanks for bringing yourselves out of the closet ... now move along to https://www.neogaf.com/forums/politics-discussion.33/

 

[Virex]

How is Kotaku still in business. They literally only peddle shit.

 

[B-universe]

This forum spends literally hundreds of pages complaining about politics in games and almost as many complaining how kotaku shouldnt be allowed to write about politics in games.

This forum, collectively, doesn't do jack shit, because only individual members can act. What now? Am I supposed to forever bear the burden of what some other posters said some time ago?

I also want to acknowledge your attempt to mischaracterize the, shall we say, big trends around here.

1 ) Apparently, you need to be reminded that standing by freedom of speech is not the same thing as endorsing the content of said speech. The reverse is also true. So Kotaku can indeed be criticized for the material they put out while at the same time fully supported in the right to voice their clumsy, irrational opinions. Bonkers, isn't it? This isn't even a terribly original concept, but apparently hasn't reached the shores of Lortland.

2 ) It is also entirely possible and non-contradictory to stand by the right of developers to insert whatever ideology in their games, because they are indeed sovereign over their creations - first principle - and then criticize them for the specific ideology, its implementation or any other aspect of the game - second principle.

 

[HaveButOneLife]

Those people are idiots too.

Diversity in media is not some hot button issue for ME.. it just has nothing to do with politics.

I don't really give a shit if my games are all hot white chicks.. or a mix of races.. but like I said, I don't give a shit. The people who cry when a black or gay person appears in the game are the one's I think are funny and would be highly hypocritical if right wing politics showed up in a game.

Lol.

 

[GiJoint]

What a bunch of snowflakes - on par with Activsion removing the Tiananmen Square footage from the teaser to avoid offending the wimpy Chinese govt.

 

[GymWolf]

People still read Kotaku . Why ?

We all have constipation from time to time.

 

[Shmunter]

Hope I’m not late with this one....

 

[cormack12]

Kotaku is right.
Reagan presented as a hero. That's terrible. What about Pinochet ? What about the contras ? And the Iran affair ?

He is presented as a sitting president who authorizes black operations.

Yup, exactly this.

There's a distinct type of internet person and they all do the same thing. Take something, reframe it falsely but extreme and then ask you to justify the thing they made up. Who the fuck said he was a hero, lmao? The part you're missing is the massive leap you've made from reality to your point.

It's exactly the same as 'these riots and looters are shithouses and need to be in jail'. But these disingenuous fucks take it to say 'you're against BLM, you're just a nazi, generic insult, generic insult'. These people are literally stupid and display it proudly.

 

[Fuz]

Even schreider left them.

 

[Lort]

This forum, collectively, doesn't do jack shit, because only individual members can act. What now? Am I supposed to forever bear the burden of what some other posters said some time ago?

I also want to acknowledge your attempt to mischaracterize the, shall we say, big trends around here.

1 ) Apparently, you need to be reminded that standing by freedom of speech is not the same thing as endorsing the content of said speech. The reverse is also true. So Kotaku can indeed be criticized for the material they put out while at the same time fully supported in the right to voice their clumsy, irrational opinions. Bonkers, isn't it? This isn't even a terribly original concept, but apparently hasn't reached the shores of Lortland.

2 ) It is also entirely possible and non-contradictory to stand by the right of developers to insert whatever ideology in their games, because they are indeed sovereign over their creations - first principle - and then criticize them for the specific ideology, its implementation or any other aspect of the game - second principle.

This used to be a forum about games .. now its just a permanently offended rant about how having a woman in a game or a gay person is a political statement .. and that the public who buy these games and want to play as such should have no right to because “historical accuracy” ... this is promoted by neckbearded girlfiendless mums basement dwelling losers.

In reality the actual public want to put on a frog suit and dance the floss whilst playing a mobile 3rd person shooter on their console.

The pretense that these developers are beholden to some left wing conspiracy is a ridiculous 4 chan level qanon load of bs.

Im not saying these posters cant enjoy circle-jerking themselves over their delusions .. but honestly do it somewhere else. This forum is barely on point ever ... beyond3d and restera threads are far less political and far more on point technically.

2. The fact posters turn everything thats not political ( such as allowing the player to play as a woman) into something political and rant about it for hundreds of pages .. and something thats totally political ( such as COD trailer that is 100% about subversive cold war politics) into being allowed because its the right type of fascist politics and that Kotaku shouldnt comment on that .. is exactly my point.

 

[Explosive Zombie]

This used to be a forum about games .. now its just a permanently offended rant about how having a woman in a game or a gay person is a political statement .. and that the public who buy these games and want to play as such should have no right to because “historical accuracy” ... this is promoted by neckbearded girlfiendless mums basement dwelling losers.

In reality the actual public want to put on a frog suit and dance the floss whilst playing a mobile 3rd person shooter on their console.

The pretense that these developers are beholden to some left wing conspiracy is a ridiculous 4 chan level qanon load of bs.

Im not saying these posters cant enjoy circle-jerking themselves over their delusions .. but honestly do it somewhere else. This forum is barely on point ever ... beyond3d and restera threads are far less political and far more on point technically.

2. The fact posters turn everything thats not political ( such as allowing the player to play as a woman) into something political and rant about it for hundreds of pages .. and something thats totally political ( such as COD trailer that is 100% about subversive cold war politics) into being allowed because its the right type of fascist politics and that Kotaku shouldnt comment on that .. is exactly my point.

Who's saying anyone should have no right to access certain games?

It's not about Kotaku commenting, they're calling it dangerous. Try and imagine a gaming outlet say a game with a trans lead is dangerous because children might play it. What's dangerous about the M-rated new Call of Duty, though? I wouldn't call either dangerous but I want to know why one is acceptable to call dangerous and the other not?

 

[Geki-D]

People don't have problems with historically accurate depictions of media.

...Have you played Black Ops? It's even looser on its history than having female characters in the MP mode of a WW2 game. Also, hope you enjoy "dem femoid" spec op agents running around your 1980's themed cold war multiplay game.

As for Yuri Bezmenov, it's quite clear that the only thing we're meant to take as canon for this game are literally the sections of the interview we heard from that trailer. So pretty much there's this Persius guy causing havoc. The rest, as far as the game is concerned, won't exist and the cutscene we saw at Gamescom makes it quite clear.

Though yes, it is unfortunate and tin-eared that they used an interview that is commonly passed around by conspiracy theorists and has been for years. But all of the idiots jacking themselves raw over how "red-pilled" the game is going to be (you know, the thing that people kept saying when the trailer first came out literally proving that Kotuaku is in fact right and the conspiracy nuts are seeing this as a dog whistle) are in for a hilarious disappointment.

 

[B-universe]

This used to be a forum about games .. now its just a permanently offended rant about how having a woman in a game or a gay person is a political statement ..

This section of the forum is about whatever gaming-related topic the rules can accommodate and members in good standing want it to be.

Surely, you must welcome this topic. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted, would you?. You would have simply ignored the thread, wouldn't you? Instead, you decided to take part in the discussion. You decided to actively help keep the thread on the front page of GAF, thus promoting it.

Well done you.

and that the public who buy these games and want to play as such should have no right to because “historical accuracy” ...

Who here says the public "should have no right" to play this or that kind of game? Please quote them.

Will the luminous day ever come when you realize criticizing a developer for this or that decision is not necessarily the same thing as trying to deny the public their right to play the games they want?

this is promoted by neckbearded girlfiendless mums basement dwelling losers.

I love this autobiographical note of yours.

In reality the actual public want to put on a frog suit and dance the floss whilst playing a mobile 3rd person shooter on their console.

The public can do and play whatever they want. It's not up to me to decide. I don't really care, to the extent it doesn't significantly hamper the ability of certain studios to put out the kind of games I like.

The pretense that these developers are beholden to some left wing conspiracy is a ridiculous 4 chan level qanon load of bs.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy for one to be able to criticize it, does it?
It's a deliberate step by developers, steeped, naturally, in their worldview, with which you are entirely free to agree or disagree, endorse of criticize. I happen to have no problem whatsoever with female protagonists, as a matter of principle. In fact, I'll be playing Cyberpunk 2077 as female V.

However, in principle, I also see no problem in raising issues of historical accuracy. It's especially rich of you to ignore the fact that in cases like Battlefield V, the developers themselves stated that including a female protagonist was an act of bravery destined to place them on "the right side of history" (source).

Im not saying these posters cant enjoy circle-jerking themselves over their delusions .. but honestly do it somewhere else.

Sure, they can do it, provided they do it in places Mr. Lort approves of.

It's not like you can simply ignore threads like this and decide not to go through them, right? No. That would take personal responsability. You'd much rather have administrative measures curating the forum according to your personal preferences of the day.

It spares you the immense trouble of not clicking on threads.

This forum is barely on point ever ... beyond3d and restera threads are far less political and far more on point technically.

Well, I appreciate your herculean effort to post on a forum you so obviously despise. You must be guided by some strong sense of duty in order to overcome that revulsion and remain an active member.

2. The fact posters turn everything thats not political ( such as allowing the player to play as a woman) into something political

Yes, inherent to freedom is the possibility to be wrong.
Others might prefer tyranny, though.

and rant about it for hundreds of pages .. and something thats totally political ( such as COD trailer that is 100% about subversive cold war politics) into being allowed because its the right type of fascist politics and that Kotaku shouldnt comment on that .. is exactly my point.

Just imagine.

Posters can criticize left-wing politics in game A and still endorse right-wing politics in game B, and vice-versa, without ever contradicting themselves!

And NeoGAF member XYZ can say he outright hates politics in games and NeogGAF member 123 can at the same time declare his unmitigated love for left-wing politics in games and still NeoGAF member Lort thinks he can from his collectivist point of view declare that as a whole NeoGAF contradicts itself haphazardly!

Just because you're too lazy to dig up quotes and show conclusively that specific posters possibly contradict themselves, that doesn't afford you carte blanche to deem the entire forum a nest of inconsistent incels.

But, hey, you're on a mission to turn GAF into the kind of forum you want to take part in. Evidently, it's up to the whole of GAF to adjust itself to your likings, especially when you have provided zero compelling arguments.

Clearly.

 

[Paracelsus]

Comments like "Literally merely having a gay character in a game is labeled as "having a political agenda" are also unwittingly, or deliberately part of an agenda. They belong to the exact same category as "it's not censorship". Censorship happens in more ways than just removing something.

Denying there's an agenda, downplaying an agenda to a tiny little strawman ("having a woman in a videogame" to describe Abby and her role in TLOU2), and denying there's censorship is vital because it's partly about pretending the change is not forced through "education" or cancel culture. Also, an idea doesn't sound positive if it's forced.

Denying everything is necessary because it speeds up the process.

You didn't really need Bezmenov to figure it out, though, in no way it is a conspiracy. It's stunningly obvious. The past three months (and the past ten years) can be only explained by a full generation worth of "education" blossoming into this.

The people that think others are brainwashed, are the same hell-bent on infiltrating everything to force their politics into it. Even science, which is why people are growing skeptical of it, unfortunately.

I mean, just look at gaming journalism or journalism in general.

 

[Lort]

Who's saying anyone should have no right to access certain games?

It's not about Kotaku commenting, they're calling it dangerous. Try and imagine a gaming outlet say a game with a trans lead is dangerous because children might play it. What's dangerous about the M-rated new Call of Duty, though? I wouldn't call either dangerous but I want to know why one is acceptable to call dangerous and the other not?

Honestly who the f cares what Kotaku thinks?

 

[Explosive Zombie]

Honestly who the f cares what Kotaku thinks?

Enough people to worry me.

 

[Zghia]

can we please ban kotaku from neogaf ?

 

[Lort]

This section of the forum is about whatever gaming-related topic the rules can accommodate and members in good standing want it to be.

Surely, you must welcome this topic. Otherwise you wouldn't have posted, would you?. You would have simply ignored the thread, wouldn't you? Instead, you decided to take part in the discussion. You decided to actively help keep the thread on the front page of GAF, thus promoting it.

Well done you.



Who here says the public "should have no right" to play this or that kind of game? Please quote them.

Will the luminous day ever come when you realize criticizing a developer for this or that decision is not the same thing as trying to deny the public their right to play the games they want?



I love this autobiographical note of yours.



The public can do and play whatever they want. It's not up to me to decide. I don't really care, to the extent it doesn't significantly hamper the ability of certain studios to put out the kind of games I like.



It doesn't have to be a conspiracy for one to be able to criticize it, does it?
It's a deliberate step by developers, steeped, naturally, in their worldview, with which you are entirely free to agree or disagree, endorse of criticize. I happen to have no problem whatsoever with female protagonists, as a matter of principle. In fact, I'll be playing Cyberpunk 2077 as female V.

However, in principle, I also see no problem in raising issues of historical accuracy. It's especially rich of you to ignore the fact that in cases like Battlefield V, the developers themselves stated that including a female protagonist was an act of bravery destined to place them on "the right side of history" (source).



Sure, they can do it, provided they do it in places Mr. Lort approves of.

It's not like you can simply ignore threads like this and decide not to go through them, right? No. That would take personal responsability. You'd much rather have administrative measures curating the forum according to your personal preferences of the day.

It spares you the immense trouble of not clicking on threads.



Well, I appreciate your herculean effort to post on a forum you so obviously despise. You must be guided by some strong sense of duty in order to overcome that revulsion and remain an active member.



Yes, inherent to freedom is the possibility to be wrong.
Others might prefer tyranny, though.



Just imagine.

Posters can criticize left-wing politics in game A and still endorse right-wing politics in game B, and vice-versa, without ever contradicting themselves!

And NeoGAF member XYZ can say he outright hates politics in games and NeogGAF member 123 can at the same time declare his unmitigated love for left-wing politics in games and still NeoGAF member Lort thinks he can from his collectivist point of view declare that as a whole NeoGAF contradicts itself haphazardly!

Just because you're too lazy to dig up quotes and show conclusively that specific posters possibly contradict themselves, that doesn't afford you carte blanche to deem the entire forum a nest of inconsistent incels.

But, hey, you're on a mission to turn GAF into the kind of forum you want to take part in. Evidently, it's up to the whole of GAF to adjust itself to your likings, especially when you have provided zero compelling arguments.

Clearly.

This thread sure doesnt need me in it to push it to the top every day.

You can pretend all you want that you dont know what im talking about... but you do.

Im not going to name anyone .. i dont have an issue with anyone having whatever poltical beliefs they want.

It would be nice if it was about COD not about kotaku ... some people are talking about that here and i support that.

I think its a cool opportunity for COD to leverage current politics and crazyness in a nod to history repeating itself.

Developers should not be afraid to put politics in games ... or women... or gay robots or whatever they want.

 

[Ladioss]

what even is considered alt-right?

Like the "fascist" slur : anything that run counter to the soft totalitarism of the liberal/progressive consensus. It's the modern-day equivalent of heresy.

 

[IDappa]

...Have you played Black Ops? It's even looser on its history than having female characters in the MP mode of a WW2 game. Also, hope you enjoy "dem femoid" spec op agents running around your 1980's themed cold war multiplay game.

As for Yuri Bezmenov, it's quite clear that the only thing we're meant to take as canon for this game are literally the sections of the interview we heard from that trailer. So pretty much there's this Persius guy causing havoc. The rest, as far as the game is concerned, won't exist and the cutscene we saw at Gamescom makes it quite clear.

Though yes, it is unfortunate and tin-eared that they used an interview that is commonly passed around by conspiracy theorists and has been for years. But all of the idiots jacking themselves raw over how "red-pilled" the game is going to be (you know, the thing that people kept saying when the trailer first came out literally proving that Kotuaku is in fact right and the conspiracy nuts are seeing this as a dog whistle) are in for a hilarious disappointment.

It's quite clear what they were aiming for with black ops, a Vietnam era alternate history loosely based on historical facts it was never advertised as anything else.

BF however was pushed as a realistic historically accurate WW2 game which pushed female inclusion at every turn. Also trying to take real life events and change them to include females.

One can only speculate on the story of BO4 we shall see. I don't have a horse in this race either way, just find the reactions of some funny.

 

[Geki-D]

BF however was pushed as a realistic historically accurate WW2 game which pushed female inclusion at every turn. Also trying to take real-life events and change them to include females.

The reveal trailer for BFV featured bionic arms, katanas, spiked cricket bats, planes flying 2 meters above the ground & people casually jumping from the second story of a house to avoid bling blinged up tanks driving through the building. lol no, the reveal of BFV was not aiming for "realistic historically accurate WW2 game", it was practically setting us up for Fornite WW2 Edition. The campaign, however, whilst it did rejig one story to replace the characters of a real life mission, is practically a live footage documentary compared to the ridiculous alt history nonsense of Black Ops.

 

[IDappa]

The reveal trailer for BFV featured bionic arms, katanas, spiked cricket bats, planes flying 2 meters above the ground & people casually jumping from the second story of a house to avoid bling blinged up tanks driving through the building. lol no, the reveal of BFV was not aiming for "realistic historically accurate WW2 game", it was practically setting us up for Fornite WW2 Edition. The campaign, however, whilst it did rejig one story to replace the characters of a real life mission, is practically a live footage documentary compared to the ridiculous alt history nonsense of Black Ops.

Are you forgetting every other gameplay trailer and Dec statement that was released after the initial cgi trailer?.

The story missions that are based on real battles also multiplayer levels that are based on real operations. Im sure one of the Devs tweeted or said it was a their most realistic depiction of WW2. Which they then said they were on the right side of history, implying that they tried to tell real world history with a healthy dose of current day agendas.

Point is from the information that was released around BO 1 hype cycle it was clear they were taking inspiration from the past while having their own alternate history narrative woven into the game.

 

[ShadowWolf712]

There is a difference between politics as plot/setting and political messaging.

Pretty much every game has political themes: Division, Ghost Recon, COD, Rainbow Six, Battlefield, Metal Gear, Zelda, Fire Emblem, Halo, Bioshock, Half Life, GTA etc. These serve as the the back drop in the story and setup the plot. Nobody truly has a problem with that.

Political messaging on the other hand is a direct response to and value judgement on a current political topic. When a game practically breaks the fourth wall to either parrot or refute a current political talking point, that is where people take issue.

In this case, Kotaku is calling Soviet subversion a conspiracy, and an alt-right one at that. It's certainly not that, it's history, again something borrowed from the real world for plot. They aren't using it to make a value judgment on current politics.

Bro, anything anti-Communist is pro-Fascist now, and anything painting Communists as bad is Far-Right Conspiracy. Didn't you get the memo?

Certainly seems to be the general consensus amongst many of the Twitter Progs I run into as of late, at least.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

the problem isn't that people are putting politics in their games, the problem is Kotaku is mad they aren't exclusively putting THEIR politics in games.

all representational media is inherently political. if you are referencing real world politics then they are there. you don't have to PUT politics in your game because they will be there already.

this isn't enough for the SJW though. it can't simply comment on the real world. it can't "have politics" - which i just showed is a meaningless statement because all representational art is political. it has to push an agenda. not only that, it has to push a very specific agenda.

there is a difference between media that has politics in it and one that is promoting a specific view. what they want is propaganda.

this is why they are doing what they do. they aren't there to write about video games as an entertainment media. they are there to use videogames for political activism. the game itself is secondary to it's use as a tool in whatever activist fight the writer is engaged in. the game is a "platform", a stepping stool to use as a soap box.

it is entirely hypocritical to see them screech and imply that they think a game should have politics removed, when it doesn't line up with their personal values. they keep saying "games should be taken seriously, they should have politics" and yet, look how they recoil in fear. using the fearmongering language of "recklessly promotes" as if a game is only responsible if it promotes THEIR agenda.

so please spare me the "idiots don't want politics in their games" straw man. the thing people are sick of is journos like this who need to bend and shape every piece of media to fit their personal political aims. it is dangerous and anti intellectual. it is close minded.

people don't want politics removed from their games, they want it removed from the consumer media commentators. they should be focused on whether a game functions properly FOR ALL CONSUMERS rather than how well it promotes the reviewer's specific agenda. it is a question of looking beyond themselves. SJWs are wholly narcissistic and can't accept any opinions outside of their own. that's a shitty quality to have when you are reviewing mass media.

 

[tsumake]

The internet has made it easy for anyone to have their opinion known and amplified, whether you’re a journalist or a poster on gaf. It’s very easy to find reactionary comments on anything. Subtly, nuance and context are thrown out the window because of clickbait and TLDR. It’s very easy to reinforce you’re own bias, to the point where we are increasingly balkanizing ourselves. Honestly, for a lot of people it’s easier to adopt another person’s opinion then to have your own.

 

[Vanitymachine]

When do we get the article about all the games that promote reckless far left conspiracy theories such as gender fluidity?

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Maybe people don't like it when the conspiracy theory is ACTUALLY TRUE.

There's nothing true about the conspiracy theories used in CoD.
People are more than dumb enough to go crazy and fall for both right- and left-extremist ideas all on their own, it doesn't require a puppet master in the background. Never has.

What makes the crazies at Kotaku go mad is that this time, the chosen conspiracy theory is one of "evil left people" instead of the usual "evil right people".
They aren't used to that at all.